STANDARDS FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF
SCHOOL MEDIA SPECIALIST
AND
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST PROGRAMS
EDITED BY
RODNEY S. EARLE
Brigham Young University
DOCUMENT REVISIONS (January 2005) BY
KAY A. PERSICHITTE
University of Wyoming
FOURTH EDITION
2000
ASSOCIATION FOR EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
BLOOMINGTON, IN
Standards Approved by NCATE in October 2000
Standards Revised in October 2001
Institutions seeking NCATE accreditation are required to respond to AECT's program
standards for programs that prepare school media specialists and/or educational
technology specialists.
These standards may be downloaded at no cost from the AECT website (aect.org)
Prepared by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)
to accompany the Standards, Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation of
Professional Education Units of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE).
Copyright 2000
Association for Educational Communications and Technology
1800 North Stonelake Drive, Bloomington IN 47404
(812) 335-7675
aect@aect.org
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. iv
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL MEDIA
SPECIALIST AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST PROGRAMS .....1
NCATE/AECT Program Review Process ...........................................................................1
Historical Overview .............................................................................................................1
NCATE/AECT Process .......................................................................................................2
Overview of Program Types ................................................................................................4
Composition of the Program Report ....................................................................................5
History of the Field ..............................................................................................................5
Knowledge Base ..................................................................................................................8
Clarification of Appropriate NCATE Standards................................................................11
CHAPTER II: STANDARDS FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF INITIAL
PREPARATION PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL MEDIA AND EDUCATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS (SMETS) ......................................................................12
Standard 1: Design .............................................................................................................14
Standard 2: Development ...................................................................................................18
Standard 3: Utilization .......................................................................................................22
Standard 4: Management ...................................................................................................25
Standard 5: Evaluation .......................................................................................................28
CHAPTER III: STANDARDS FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF ADVANCED
PREPARATION PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL MEDIA AND EDUCATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS (SMETS) ......................................................................30
Standard 1: Design .............................................................................................................32
Standard 2: Development ...................................................................................................36
Standard 3: Utilization .......................................................................................................38
Standard 4: Management ...................................................................................................40
Standard 5: Evaluation .......................................................................................................42
CHAPTER IV: INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ...............................................44
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................46
APPENDIX A: ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE ...........................51
v
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Clarence Bergeson, SUNY Albany, whose ideas and initial work led to the
accomplishment this document represents.
William F Grady, former AECT President, and longtime AECT Liaison to NCATE.
Members of the Accreditation Committees, 1971-1994 for sustaining and supporting the
effort.
For the 1989 revisions, special recognition goes to John Berling, Accreditation
Committee Chairman, and the Committee members: Carol Carlisle, E. S. Cridge, Rodney
Earle, William Grady, Nancy Hamm, Walter Hanclosky, Ralph Hawkins, Phyllis
Lacroix, AND George Pfotenhauer.
For 1994 revisions, special recognition goes to the AECT/ NCATE Guidelines Task
Force: Edward Caffarella, Chairperson, Mark Bugler, Phil Doughty, Rodney Earle,
William Grady, Walter Hanclosky, Annette Lamb, Rita Richey, and Mike Streibel.
For the 2000 revision, we recognize the contributions of members of the Accreditation
Committee: Thomas Blevins, Rodney Earle, Patricia Fewell, Mary Ann Kolloff, Edna
Mory, Kay Persichitte, George Pfotenhauer, Pal Rao, and Roger Tipling.
v
PREFACE
The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) has a
long history of concern for the place of instructional media and technology in teacher
education and for the professional preparation of media personnel. In 1971, AECT
President Robert Heinich appointed two task forces to work on accreditation and
certification. The task forces were chaired by Clarence Bergeson and William Grady,
respectively. The task forces worked for three years reviewing the literature, conducting
work sessions and open hearings, publishing documents, and receiving written responses.
In total, some 700 educators and trainers from education and business/industry
participated in the work. The work was completed when the AECT Board of Directors
formally adopted the recommendations and published the results in the November, 1974
issue of Audiovisual Instruction. A continuing outgrowth of this activity has been the
accreditation of professional education programs. AECT's actions in the area of
accreditation have primarily been in cooperation with the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). In 1972, under the direction of Clarence
Bergeson and later William Grady, AECT began conducting workshops to train members
of the Association to serve on NCATE visiting teams. AECT's efforts in conjunction with
NCATE were recognized when AECT was accepted as a liaison member in 1978 and was
granted constituent membership on the Council in 1980.
NCATE standards have for some time stipulated that institutions should consider,
in both the design of basic teacher education and advanced professional preparation
programs, guidelines developed by appropriate professional associations. To meet this
requirement and to assist institutions in program design, AECT, again under the
leadership of Clarence Bergeson, developed and published the Basic Guidelines for
Media Technology in Teacher Education (AECT, 1971). The basic guidelines were
followed by the Guidelines for Advanced Programs in Educational Communications and
Technology (AECT, 1974b). Both were designed to accompany and amplify the NCATE
standards.
Problems with, and omissions in, the original guidelines were soon identified. In
1977 AECT decided to conduct a major expansion and revision of the guidelines to
correspond more closely with the NCATE Standards. An initial draft revision was
prepared by the AECT Accreditation Committee and presented to the membership of the
Association during open hearings in 1978. Suggestions and comments offered during the
hearings were reviewed by the committee and a revised draft was prepared for further
membership review during open hearings in 1981. Minor editorial changes were made by
the committee following the hearings, and the final draft of the guidelines for media
support to basic teacher education and for advanced professional programs was adopted
by the AECT Board of Directors in April, 1981. While revision of the existing guidelines
was taking place, a draft of guidelines for undergraduate professional programs was
being developed. These guidelines were completed and approved by the AECT Board in
January, 1983.
v
In 1983, a new set of NCATE standards became effective. The previous standards
called for institutions to only show that they have studied the professional association
guidelines. The new standards called for an institution to adapt and show the effect of
professional association guidelines on the design of the institution's professional
preparation programs. Programs in educational communications and instructional
technologies were also added to the annual listing of accredited programs published by
NCATE. The AECT guidelines were first adopted by NCATE in 1984, one of four
association guidelines used in a pilot study to develop procedures for the implementation
of the new NCATE standards.
During the early 1990's two AECT groups worked in concert to redefine the field
and to revise the NCATE guidelines. The two groups were the Definitions and
Terminology Committee chaired by Barbara Seels and the NCATE Guidelines Task
Force chaired by Edward Caffarella. The Definitions and Terminology Committee
prepared a new document entitled Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains
of the Field (Seels & Richey, 1994). They described the field in terms of five domains
namely: design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation. The revised
guidelines are based largely upon this work and oriented around the knowledge base of
the field.
The NCATE Guidelines Task Force developed a new set of guidelines for basic
and advanced programs in educational communications and instructional technologies.
Those guidelines were approved by the AECT Board of Directors in February 1994 and
by the NCATE Specialty Areas Studies Board in the Fall of that year. The older Basic
Guidelines for Media and Technology in Teacher Education has been merged into the
general NCATE Standards. All programs seeking NCATE accreditation must now
describe the use of technology as part of the teacher education program in the
Institutional Report to NCATE rather than in a separate program report as was previously
the case.
These AECT guidelines (now renamed “standards”) for initial and advanced
professional programs that prepare school media specialists and educational technology
specialists have been published as a single document. However, although they are
complementary, each serves a different purpose and is aimed at different audiences
within the educational community. These purposes are stated in the introduction to each
section of the new standards.
Based upon NCATE’s 1996 call to move to performance-based accreditation, a
task force chaired by Rodney Earle revised the 1994 guidelines to reflect a performance
perspective as evidence for addressing the major domains of the field as described by
Seels and Richey (1994). These new standards were approved by the AECT Board of
Directors in July 2000 and by the NCATE Specialty Areas Studies Board in the Fall of
that year.
In 2004, a series of discussions facilitated by NCATE led to the document
changes evident here: a title change for the AECT Standards and the removal of the word
vi
“library” from the text of the standards and indicators. Additional revisions to this
document include reference to a completely redesigned program review process and a
standardized template for the submission of program reports.
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO STANDARDS FOR
SCHOOL MEDIA SPECIALIST AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
SPECIALIST PROGRAMS
The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)
sponsors two sets of standards under the National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE): 1) Standards for the Accreditation of Initial Programs that
prepare School Media Specialists and Educational Technology Specialists, and 2)
Standards for the Accreditation of Advanced Programs that prepare School Media
Specialists and Educational Technology Specialists.
This chapter includes a brief description of the program review process, a short
history of the field, and an overview of the knowledge base for the field of educational
technology. Chapters II and III contain explanations of the specific standards for program
review purposes. Appendix A offers suggestions for performance assessment.
NCATE/AECT PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS
The purpose of this section is two fold: to provide an overview of the
NCATE/AECT program review process and to assist individuals with the successful
compilation of information and evidence related to programs that prepare school media
specialists and educational technology specialists. This is best accomplished through an
understanding of the past and present program review process.
Historical Overview
From its inception, AECT has been concerned with the development of competent
teachers as well as the development of quality media personnel. In 1970, a special AECT
commission on teacher education was established to study the use of media in teacher
education. One year later this group published the Basic Guidelines for Media and
Technology in Teacher Education (AECT, 1971). This document outlines
recommendations for appropriate selection, utilization, and production of media by
classroom teachers. Then in 1971, AECT established two task forces to study
certification and accreditation guidelines for educational media professionals (Bergeson,
1973). This intensive three year research study produced three significant documents: the
Accreditation and Certification Frame of Reference (Prigge, 1974), the Guidelines for the
Certification of Personnel in Educational Communications and Technology (AECT,
1974c), and the AECT Guidelines for Advanced Programs in Educational
Communications and Technology (AECT, 1974a).
These efforts typify AECT's longstanding relationship with NCATE. Since the
early 1970s, the Association has played a significant role in the accreditation of general
teacher education programs as well as programs in the technology field. Over the years,
AECT guidelines have been designed to accompany and amplify the NCATE standards.
1
NCATE's decision in 1977 to adopt a major revision of accreditation standards prompted
a corresponding review of the AECT guidelines (AECT, 1982). In 1980, AECT's
admission to constituent membership in NCATE placed the association in a position of
significant influence in the accreditation process. This made AECT one of three
professional associations to be affiliated with NCATE. Today, over twenty professional
associations use their performance standards to evaluate professional programs in higher
education through NCATE.
A redesign of NCATE operations in 1986 resulted in the requirement that teacher
education institutions submit curriculum folios for review by NCATE affiliated
professional societies (Grady, 1987). This resulted in the AECT Accreditation
Committee’s revision of existing guidelines to reflect current practices, changes in the
field, and adjustments in the review process.
The guidelines were again revised during 1992 and 1993, using the newly
developed definition of the field (Seels & Richey, 1994). During this revision cycle the
teacher education folio guidelines were merged with the overall NCATE standards and
AECT discontinued the separate folio guidelines for educational communications and
instructional technologies in teacher education. The document, Standards for
Accreditation of Programs in Educational Communications and Instructional
Technologies, was adopted by the AECT Board of Directors in 2000, and it reflected
NCATE’s move towards performance-based accreditation. The Current document,
Standards for the Accreditation of School Media Specialist and Educational Technology
Specialist Programs, provides a revision to the title of the Standards and updates the
program review process, but provides no substantive revision to the Standards,
themselves.
NCATE/AECT Process
To establish eligibility for initial accreditation evaluation by NCATE, an
institution submits a preconditions report which addresses a variety of areas ranging from
governance to curriculum. One of the preconditions requires the institution to submit
program review documentation for specific programs for which there are NCATE
approved standards. As part of the NCATE review process, the role of the professional
organization is to focus on the program review documentation. This documentation is, in
effect, a description of the programs that prepare personnel in specialized fields and
includes performances required of candidates as well as evidence of achievement of those
performances. The continuing accreditation process is implemented every five years
after initial accreditation (revised to seven years once the unit has earned accreditation
under the NCATE 2000 Standards) and requires institutions to demonstrate ongoing
compliance with NCATE standards and to address previously noted areas for
improvement.
One of the most important outcomes of the 1986 NCATE redesign was that
affiliated professional organizations were responsible for individually guiding the review
of their professional programs. This is the case today, though the review process is now
2
guided and prescribed by NCATE in collaboration with respective specialized
professional associations (SPAs).
The AECT Accreditation Committee identifies qualified AECT members to
participate in reviewer training sessions organized and delivered by NCATE to prepare
our colleagues to conduct the review of programs of higher education programs seeking
“national recognition” under the standards presented in this document. An invitation to
apply for positions as Board of Examiner (BOE) site-visitors and Program Reviewers is
distributed to all AECT members through the organizational publications, Tech Trends
and Educational Technology Research and Development, and on the AECT web page
(http://www.aect.org). Nominations are also sought from current reviewers, committee
members, and the AECT leadership. Candidates are asked to submit a vita to the AECT
Accreditation Committee. Those who respond are sent a letter specifying the duties and
responsibilities of the positions and inviting them to attend the session on accreditation
training at the next AECT conference. The vitae are evaluated by the committee and
invitations to participate as program reviewer and/or BOE member are issued.
Six months prior to a scheduled NCATE Board of Examiners (BOE) visit,
program reports are submitted to the NCATE office for dissemination to a Review Team
of three reviewers for respective SPAs. [See the NCATE website for the detailed
Program report template for each SPA and for instructions for the completion and
electronic submission of the Program Report.] The NCATE office notifies three trained
reviewers for the SPA that they have a report to review and a revised, online,
collaborative review begins. Once the recommendation of the Review Team is submitted
to NCATE, the NCATE office constitutes a three-person Audit Team (from trained SPA
reviewers) to review the recommendation of the Review Team. The Audit Team submits
a response to the NCATE office. The NCATE office takes the recommendations of both
teams and makes a final decision, then notifies the institution of the recognition decision.
Recognition decisions fall into one of these four categories:
 Program is nationally recognized. The program is recognized through the
semester and year of the institution’s next NCATE accreditation visit in 5-7 years.
To retain recognition, another program report must be submitted before that
review. The program will be listed as nationally recognized through the semester
of the next NCATE review on websites and/or other publications of the SPA and
NCATE. The institution may designate its program as nationally recognized by
NCATE, through the semester of the next NCATE accreditation review, in its
published materials. National recognition is dependent upon NCATE
accreditation.
 Subsequent action by the institution: None. Nationally recognized programs may
not file revised reports addressing any unmet standards or areas for improvement.
 Program is nationally recognized with conditions. The program is recognized
through [date to be filled in by NCATE]. The program will be listed as nationally
recognized on websites and/or other publications of the SPA and NCATE. The
institution may designate its program as nationally recognized by NCATE,
3

through the time period specified above, in its published materials. National
recognition is dependent upon NCATE accreditation.
Subsequent action by the institution: To retain accreditation, a report addressing
the conditions to recognition must be submitted within 18 months of the date of
this report, no later than [date to be filled in by NCATE]. The report must address
the conditions specified in the box below. Failure to submit a report by the date
specified above will result in loss of national recognition.
 Program recognition decision is deferred. Programs that retain recognition
from a prior review will remain recognized until a decision is reached following
the submission of a revised report, as described in the following paragraph.
 Subsequent action by the institution: A revised report addressing the issues
identified in the box below must be submitted within approximately two months
of the date of this report, no later than [date to be filled in by NCATE]. Failure to
submit a report by the date specified above will result in loss of national
recognition.
 Program is not nationally recognized. Programs that retain recognition from a
prior review will lose recognition at the end of the semester in which the NCATE
accreditation visit is held, unless a revised program report is submitted in or
before that semester.
 Subsequent action by the institution: A revised report, addressing unmet
standards, may be submitted within 18 months of the date of this report, no later
than [date to be filled in by NCATE].
 The institution may submit a new program report at any time. In states that
require NCATE program review, another program report must be submitted
before the next NCATE accreditation visit.
The Program Report and the reviewer documents are used later by an NCATE site
evaluation team from the Board of Examiners as part of the review of evidence to make a
recommendation to the NCATE Unit Accreditation Board regarding accreditation of the
unit.
Overview of Program Types
AECT is responsible for reviewing two types of programs. These are: 1) Initial
School Media and Educational Technology Specialist (SMETS) Programs and 2)
Advanced School Media and Educational Technology Specialist (SMETS) Programs.
Authors of the earlier guidelines chose to use the term "media and technology" while the
term "educational technology" reflects a broader representation of the field. This
umbrella term provides for programs as diverse as multimedia, distance learning,
computer technologies, instructional design, as well as school media.
Initial SMETS programs are defined as those which represent initial entry into
the field. They are rooted in design and practice and, perhaps, could be likened to the
knowledge, comprehension, and application stages of Bloom’s taxonomy. Advanced
4
SMETS programs are defined as those which represent additional study in the field. They
emphasize theory, research, and higher level management processes and, perhaps, could
be likened to the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation stages of Bloom’s taxonomy. For
example, a Baccalaureate or Master's program which prepares individuals for either
initial school certification or entry level positions in business or industry may be
considered an Initial SMETS program. A graduate program which advances knowledge
and skills beyond the entry level for the profession constitutes an Advanced SMETS
program. Currently, SMETS initial programs are typically certification, licensure, or
Master’s degree programs. It is anticipated that advanced candidates are able to
demonstrate the competencies outlined in the initial standards as well as those identified
for advanced programs.
Composition of the Program Report
In May 2004, NCATE adopted a standardized template for the development of
program reports. The template resulted from collaborations with all the NCATE SPAs
over more than a year’s period and is customized for the respective standards of each
SPA. All program reports now consist of these parts: contextual information including
statements reflecting the conceptual framework for the program and the unit; certification
or licensure test results (if required by the state or the program); program description and
alignment with SPA standards; assessment of candidates’ knowledge, skills, and
dispositions; use of candidate assessment data. A critical part of this program
documentation is the data from 6 to 8 performance assessments of all candidates in the
program. Separate reports must be submitted for initial and advanced programs.
Please feel free to contact the AECT Accreditation Committee through the
national office (aect@aect.org) if you require additional assistance in your efforts to
develop your program report(s).
HISTORY OF THE FIELD
Today, the field is fascinated with the instructional possibilities presented by the
computer as a medium of communication and as a tool for integrating a variety of media
into a single piece of instruction. Video has replaced the educational film, and television
can be two-way and interactive.
At the turn of this century a number of technological inventions and developments
were made that provided new, and in some cases, more efficient means of
communication. In the 1920s, the motion picture passed through the stage of being a
mere curiosity to a serious medium of expression, paralleling live theater. Its usefulness
and influence on learning was explored. This educational research continued into the
1930s, when new instructional projects such as teaching by radio were implemented.
Within 20 years both film and radio became pervasive communication systems, providing
both entertainment and information to the average citizen.
5
The advent of World War II created many demands for a new skilled workforce.
Media took a prominent place in educational and training systems attempting to fill such
needs, and much research centered on the use of these media in a wide variety of teaching
and learning situations. Media were among the innovations that made possible the
changes and growth in the industrial complex that were so essential to the defense of the
western world.
After the war, schools and industry alike attempted to settle back into the old,
familiar methods of operation. Within a few years, however, the increase in the birth rate
and public school enrollment forced a re-evaluation of the older and slower approaches to
education. Again, media were employed, this time to upgrade the curriculum of the
public schools.
With the late 1940s and early 1950s came considerable experimentation with
television as an instructional tool. Industry was expanding and began to develop its own
in-house educational systems. Simultaneously, a search was begun for more efficient and
effective means by which such education could be accomplished.
Concurrent with the introduction and development of the study of instructional
media, the notion of a science of instruction was evolving. The educational psychologists
provided a theoretical foundation which focused on those variables which influenced
learning and instruction. The nature of the learner and the learning process took
precedence over the nature of the delivery media.
Some of the early audiovisual professionals referred to the work of Watson,
Thorndike, Guthrie, Tolman, and Hull. But it was not until the appearance of Skinner's
(1954) work with teaching machines and programmed learning that professionals in the
field felt that they had a psychological base. Skinner's work in behavioral psychology,
popularized by Mager (1961), brought a new and apparently more respectable rationale
for the field. Lumsdaine (1964) illustrated the relationship of behavioral psychology to
the field, and Wiman and Meierhenry (1969) edited the first major work that summarized
the relationship of learning psychology to the emerging field of instructional technology.
Bruner (1966) offered new insights that eventually led to broader participation of
cognitive psychologists like Glaser (1965) and Gagné (1985). Today, the field not only
seems convinced of the importance of the various aspects of cognitive processing of
information, but is placing new emphasis upon the role of instructional context, and the
unique perceptions and views of the individual learner.
Perhaps one of the most profound changes in instructional technology has come in
the expansion of the arenas in which it is typically practiced. From its beginnings in
elementary and secondary education, the field was later heavily influenced by military
training, adult education, post-secondary education, and much of today's activity is in the
area of private sector employee training. Consequently, there is increased concentration
on issues such as organizational change, performance improvement, school reform, and
cost benefits.
6
Use of the principles, products, and procedures of instructional technology,
however, continue to be vital to school effectiveness, especially in times of school
restructuring. In addition, the new technologies and new delivery media offer expanded
ways of meeting the special needs of learners and schools.
Instructional technology and instructional design procedures in particular, are also
becoming more common in health care education, training, and non-formal educational
settings. Each of these instructional contexts highlights the diverse needs of learners of
many ages and interests, and of organizations with many goals. The many settings also
provide laboratories for experimenting with and perfecting the use of the new
technologies.
However, the disparate contexts also highlight a wide range of organizational,
cultural, and personal values and attitudes. Cultures vary among the different
communities, creating new issues and possibilities for new avenues of disciplinary
growth and development.
The historical context which has surrounded the development of the field has
implications that reach beyond the actual events themselves. This is equally true of the
development of modern technology responsible for an increasing number of new media
and new uses for existing media. Such developments have redirected the energies of
many people, causing today's society to be much broader and richer than was ever
contemplated in the early 1900s.
Prior to the twentieth century, the only formal means of widespread
communication was the printing press. The technological developments since then have
provided many different modes of expression, enabling ideas, concepts, and information
gained from experience to be conveyed in ways and with contextual richness never
before possible.
The unique means of expression that have expanded with each new medium have
added new dimensions through which creative talents can be applied. For example, the
photographic and cinematographic media have long been accepted as legitimate avenues
for creative work in the arts, and television has provided new avenues for expanding
views of society.
Still photography, motion picture photography, television, and the computer have
proved to be excellent tools for a variety of academic endeavors. Historians consider film
coverage of public events to be important primary documentation. Psychologists now use
film, computers, and interactive video to control experiences and to collect data on a wide
variety of problems in human behavior. Medical researchers employ both color
photography and color television in their studies. In fact, it would be difficult for modern
scholars to maintain a position of leadership in their fields of investigation without the
assistance from media that present day technology makes possible. Further, the future of
humanity's understanding of the universe and the pursuit of greater self knowledge
7
depends upon increasingly sophisticated applications and utilizations of these
technologies.
Alternative modes for teaching and learning are most important in today's
educational environment. Opportunities for self-directed learning should be provided by
institutions of higher education. Other forms of alternative teaching and learning patterns
which require increased student involvement and higher levels of learning (application,
synthesis, evaluation) also rely upon media as an invaluable tool in the preparation of
students.
Teaching and communication, though not synonymous, are related. Much of what
the teacher does involves communication. From the spoken word to the viewing of the
real world, directly or by means of some technological invention, communication
permeates instructional activities.
Media, materials, and interactive technologies, though not the exclusive
ingredients in learning, are an integral part of almost every learning experience. The raw
materials for scholarship increasingly reside in these means. The scholarly experiences
for the student can often be afforded only through these options. The young scholar, the
college student, is a deprived scholar without access to these learning tools.
The scholar must have available all that modern technology can provide. Media,
materials, and interactive technologies have a crucial role to play in any teacher education
program if that program hopes to meet the needs of our dynamic, sophisticated world.
KNOWLEDGE BASE
These standards have been developed within the context of several years of effort
by AECT to define the field of educational technology and to specify the knowledge base
for the field. The general curriculum overview is based on Instructional Technology: The
Definition and Domains of the Field (Seels & Richey, 1994) and The Knowledge Base of
Instructional Technology: A Critical Examination (Richey, Caffarella, Ely, Molenda,
Seels, & Simonson, 1993). The Instructional Technology document provides a definition
of the field and describes the domains and sub-domains of the field. The Knowledge Base
document provides an in-depth examination of the knowledge base for each domain.
The current standards are significantly changed from earlier versions that were
based upon roles and functions of instructional technology professionals. The new
standards are grounded in the research and theory of the field as described in the
knowledge base of the field.
The definition of instructional technology prepared by the AECT Definitions and
Terminology Committee is as follows:
Instructional Technology is the theory and practice of design, development,
utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for
8
learning. ... The words Instructional Technology in the definition mean a
discipline devoted to techniques or ways to make learning more efficient
based on theory but theory in its broadest sense, not just scientific theory.
... Theory consists of concepts, constructs, principles, and propositions that
serve as the body of knowledge. Practice is the application of that
knowledge to solve problems. Practice can also contribute to the
knowledge base through information gained from experience. ... Of design,
development, utilization, management, and evaluation ... refer to both areas
of the knowledge base and to functions performed by professionals in the
field. ... Processes are a series of operations or activities directed towards a
particular result. ... Resources are sources of support for learning, including
support systems and instructional materials and environments. ... The
purpose of instructional technology is to affect and effect learning. (Seels
& Richey, 1994, pp. 1-9)
This definition is clearly grounded in the knowledge base of the field of instructional
technology.
These standards for the NCATE program review documentation are likewise
grounded in the knowledge base of the field. The knowledge base for the field is divided
into five interrelated domains: design, development, utilization, management, and
evaluation as shown in Figure 1 (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 21). Within each domain there
are sub-domains that serve to describe each domain. For example, evaluation is divided
into problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, formative evaluation, and
summative evaluation.
The relationship among the domains shown in Figure 1 is not linear, but
synergistic. Although research may focus on one specific domain or sub-domain,
practice, in reality, combines functions in all or several domains.
For example, a practitioner working in the development domain
uses theory from the design domain, such as instructional systems
design theory and message design theory. A practitioner working
in the design domain uses theory about media characteristics from
the development and utilization domains and theory about problem
analysis and measurement from the evaluation domain. (Seels &
Richey, 1994, p. 25)
Each domain also contributes to the other domains as well as to the research and
theory shared by the domains.
An example of shared theory is theory about feedback which is
used in some way by each of the domains. Feedback can be
included in both an instructional strategy and message design.
Feedback loops are used in management systems, and evaluation
provides feedback. (Seels & Richey, 1994, pp. 25-26)
9
Utilization
Media Utilization
Diffusion of Innovations
Implementation and Institutionalization
Policies and Regulations
Development
Print Technologies
Audiovisual Technologies
Computer-Based Technologies
Integrated Technologies
Theory
Practice
Management
Project Management
Resource Management
Delivery System Management
Information Management
Design
Instructional Systems Design
Message Design
Instructional Strategies
Learner Characteristics
Evaluation
Problem Analysis
Criterion-Referenced Measurement
Formative Evaluation
Summative Evaluation
Figure 1 . Domains of the Field
The Definition and Terminology Committee has provided descriptions for each of
the domains:
Design refers to the process of specifying conditions for learning.
... Development refers to the process of translating the design
specifications into physical form. ... Utilization refers to the use of
processes and resources for learning. ... Management refers to
processes for controlling instructional technology. ... Evaluation is
the process for determining the adequacy of instruction. (Seels &
Richey, 1994, pp. 24-43)
The Committee has also provided a description for each of the sub-domains of the
knowledge base.
The content for the knowledge base of each domain is provided in a series of
papers entitled The Knowledge Base of Instructional Technology: A Critical Examination
(Richey, Caffarella, Ely, Molenda, Seels, & Simonson, 1993). The key elements of the
knowledge base of each domain are described in detail in these papers. Although
10
researchers may concentrate their efforts in only one domain, most SMETS practitioners
will be employed in roles that draw upon multiple domains.
CLARIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE NCATE STANDARDS
There are three sets of NCATE approved specialty association standards related in
some way to technology:
•
•
•
International Technology Education Association/Council on Technology Teacher
Education (ITEA/CTTE)
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)
The following information is intended to help institutions decide which set of
standards is appropriate for a particular program:
•
•
•
•
•
Use ITEA/CTTE for programs preparing teachers for technology education which
focuses on human innovations in communications, construction, manufacturing,
and transportation (formerly vocational education programs).
Use ISTE for endorsement programs preparing teachers of computer literacy and
applications and endorsement/degree programs for secondary computer science
teachers.
Use AECT for programs preparing school media specialists.
Use AECT for programs preparing educational personnel for positions in the
broader arena of school media and educational technology in areas such as K-12
education, higher education, business, industry, military services, government,
and health/community services.
Use either AECT or ISTE (or both) for programs preparing K-12 technology
leaders, technology specialists, and technology coordinators at the state, district,
or building levels.
11
CHAPTER II
STANDARDS FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF
INITIAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL MEDIA AND
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS (SMETS)
These standards are concerned primarily with the curriculum and candidate
competencies required for initial programs in the area of school media and educational
technology specialists (SMETS). Initial SMETS programs are defined as those which
represent initial entry into the field. For example, a Baccalaureate or Master's program
which prepares individuals for either initial school certification or entry level positions in
business or industry may be considered an initial SMETS program. The intended
audiences for the standards are those faculty members and administrators who have
responsibility for, and control of, such programs. The standards are intended to
accompany NCATE's Standards, Procedures, and Policies for the Accreditation of
Professional Education Units, and to address Standard 1 of the NCATE standards.
Introduction
Definitions of educational technology and a discussion of the philosophical basis
for training programs are provided in Chapter I of this document and should be reviewed
prior to developing program review documentation in response to the initial standards
defined in this chapter. Initial program standards are built on the assumption that the
institution provides an adequate base of school media services for all educational
programs. In addition, NCATE’s program standards specify specialized facilities and
services deemed necessary to support the development of the competencies required of
graduates of the program.
Details of content and organization for initial programs are not specified in the
standards. All initial programs should provide for minimal competencies within each
domain of the instructional technology knowledge base. The intent of the standards is to
provide the maximum degree of flexibility enabling institutions to develop soundly
conceived and defined programs. It is not expected that every program will include all
standards, since the very nature of a program will provide a focus in one area while not
including other areas.
Curricula and candidate performances for the initial preparation of personnel in
the fields of school media and educational technology should be grounded in the
knowledge base of the field. The domains of the field include design, development,
utilization, management, and evaluation. Programs will vary in their concentration on
each of the domains.
12
The complete domains and sub-domains are listed below:
Design
Instructional Systems Design
Message Design
Instructional Strategies
Learner Characteristics
Development
Print Technologies
Audiovisual Technologies
Computer-Based Technologies
Integrated Technologies
Utilization
Media Utilization
Diffusion of Innovations
Implementation and Institutionalization
Policies and Regulations
Management
Project Management
Resource Management
Delivery System Management
Information Management
Evaluation
Problem Analysis
Criterion-Referenced Measurement
Formative Evaluation
Summative Evaluation
Within these five domains and twenty sub-domains, the program may be
composed of those competencies most appropriate to the intended roles of the candidates.
SPECIAL NOTE:
School media specialists are expected to provide evidence related to each of the five
domains. Thus, indicators related to each standard can and should be used to evaluate the
professional competency of school media specialists whose programs are focused on P12 school applications. As with all indicators within each Standard, candidates are not
expected to provide evidence of every indicator. Additionally, indicators marked with a
“*” are specifically oriented toward the preparation of school media specialists and have
particular relevance to their role.
13
Standard 1: DESIGN
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to design conditions for
learning by applying principles of instructional systems design, message design,
instructional strategies, and learner characteristics.
Supporting Explanations:
“Design is the process of specifying conditions for learning” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p.
30). The domain of design includes four sub-domains of theory and practice:
Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Message Design, Instructional Strategies, and
Learner Characteristics.
1.1
Instructional Systems Design (ISD)
“Instructional Systems Design (ISD) is an organized procedure that includes the steps of
analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating instruction”(Seels &
Richey, 1994, p. 31). Within the application of this definition, ‘design’ is interpreted at
both a macro- and micro-level in that it describes the systems approach and is a step
within the systems approach. The importance of process, as opposed to product, is
emphasized in ISD.
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
Analyzing: process of defining what is to be learned and the context in
which it is to be learned.
Designing: process of specifying how it is to be learned.
Developing: process of authoring and producing the instructional
materials.
Implementing: actually using the materials and strategies in context.
Evaluating: process of determining the adequacy of the instruction.
1.2
Message Design
“Message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the
message” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). Message design is embedded within learning
theories (cognitive, psychomotor, behavioral, perceptual, affective, constructivist) in the
application of known principles of attention, perception, and retention which are intended
to communicate with the learner. This sub-domain is specific to both the medium selected
and the learning task.
1.3
Instructional Strategies
“Instructional strategies are specifications for selecting and sequencing events and
activities within a lesson” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). In practice, instructional
strategies interact with learning situations. The results of these interactions are often
described by instructional models. The appropriate selection of instructional strategies
and instructional models depends upon the learning situation (including learner
characteristics), the nature of the content, and the type of learner objective.
14
1.4
Learner Characteristics
“Learner characteristics are those facets of the learner’s experiential background that
impact the effectiveness of a learning process” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 32). Learner
characteristics impact specific components of instruction during the selection and
implementation of instructional strategies. For example, motivation research influences
the selection and implementation of instructional strategies based upon identified learner
characteristics. Learner characteristics interact with instructional strategies, the learning
situation, and the nature of the content.
Performances Indicative of the Design Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the design standard. You may wish to
identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
1.1 Instructional Systems Design
1.1.a Utilize and implement design principles which specify optimal conditions for
learning.
1.1.b Identify a variety of instructional systems design models and apply at least one
model.
1.1.c Identify learning theories from which each model is derived and the consequent
implications.
1.1.1 Analyzing
1.1.1.a Write appropriate objectives for specific content and outcome levels.
1.1.1.b Analyze instructional tasks, content, and context.
1.1.1.c Categorize objectives using an appropriate schema or taxonomy.
1.1.1.d Compare and contrast curriculum objectives for their area(s) of preparation with
federal, state, and/or professional content standards.
1.1.2 Designing
1.1.2.a Create a plan for a topic of a content area (e.g., a thematic unit, a text chapter, an
interdisciplinary unit) to demonstrate application of the principles of macro-level design.
1.1.2.b Create instructional plans (micro-level design) that address the needs of all
learners, including appropriate accommodations for learners with special needs.
1.1.2.c* Integrate information literacy skills into classroom and media center instruction.
15
1.1.2.d Incorporate contemporary instructional technology processes in the development
of interactive lessons that promote student learning.
1.1.2.e* Collaborate with teachers on subject-area curriculum teams to ensure that
information literacy standards are integrated within the curriculum.
1.1.3 Developing
1.1.3.a Produce instructional materials which require the use of multiple media (e.g.,
computers, video, projection).
1.1.3.b Demonstrate personal skill development with at least one: computer authoring
application, video tool, or electronic communication application.
1.1.4 Implementing
1.1.4.a Use instructional plans and materials which they have produced in contextualized
instructional settings (e.g., practica, field experiences, training) that address the needs of
all learners, including appropriate accommodations for learners with special needs.
1.1.4.b* Establish a well-organized and professionally managed school media collection
based on the principles of cataloging and classification of library media center resources.
1.1.4.c* Organize materials based on the AACR2, MARC, Library of Congress, Sears
and other systems as appropriate for the cataloging and classification of school media
center resources for efficient access and retrieval by the students, teachers, administrators
and community members.
1.1.4.d* Organize, classify, and maintain bibliographic records within the media center to
ensure efficient access to resources for students and teachers.
1.1.5 Evaluating
1.1.5.a Utilize a variety of assessment measures to determine the adequacy of learning
and instruction.
1.1.5.b Demonstrate the use of formative and summative evaluation within practice and
contextualized field experiences.
1.1.5.c Demonstrate congruency among goals/objectives, instructional strategies, and
assessment measures.
1.2 Message Design
16
1.2.a Apply principles of educational psychology, communications theory, and visual
literacy to the selection of media for macro- and micro-level design of instruction.
1.2.b Apply principles of educational psychology, communications theory, and visual
literacy to the development of instructional messages specific to the learning task.
1.2.c Understand, recognize and apply basic principles of message design in the
development of a variety of communications with their learners.
1.3 Instructional Strategies
1.3.a Select instructional strategies appropriate for a variety of learner characteristics and
learning situations.
1.3.b Identify at least one instructional model and demonstrate appropriate
contextualized application within practice and field experiences.
1.3.c Analyze their selection of instructional strategies and/or models as influenced by the
learning situation, nature of the specific content, and type of learner objective.
1.3.d Select motivational strategies appropriate for the target learners, task, and learning
situation.
1.4 Learner Characteristics
1.4.a Identify a broad range of observed and hypothetical learner characteristics for their
particular area(s) of preparation.
1.4.b Describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the
selection of instructional strategies.
1.4.c Describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the
implementation of instructional strategies.
1.4.d* Describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the
selection of instructional strategies and resources within the media center.
1.4.e* Describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the
implementation of instructional strategies and resources within the media center.
17
Standard 2: DEVELOPMENT
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to develop instructional
materials and experiences using print, audiovisual, computer-based, and integrated
technologies.
Supporting Explanation:
“Development is the process of translating the design specifications into physical form”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 35). The domain of development includes four sub-domains :
Print Technologies, Audiovisual Technologies, Computer-Based Technologies, and
Integrated Technologies. Development is tied to other areas of theory, research, design,
evaluation, utilization, and management.
2.1
Print Technologies
“Print technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials, such as books and static
visual materials, primarily through mechanical or photographic printing processes”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 37). Print technologies include verbal text materials and visual
materials; namely, text, graphic and photographic representation and reproduction. Print
and visual materials provide a foundation for the development and utilization of the
majority of other instructional materials.
2.2
Audiovisual Technologies
“Audiovisual technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials by using mechanical
devices or electronic machines to present auditory and visual messages” (Seels &
Richey, 1994, p. 38). Audiovisual technologies are generally linear in nature, represent
real and abstract ideas, and allow for learner interactivity dependent on teacher
application.
2.3
Computer-Based Technologies
“Computer-based technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials using
microprocessor-based resources” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 39). Computer-based
technologies represent electronically stored information in the form of digital data.
Examples include computer-based instruction(CBI), computer-assisted instruction (CAI),
computer-managed instruction (CMI), telecommunications, electronic communications,
and global resource/reference access.
2.4
Integrated Technologies
“Integrated technologies are ways to produce and deliver materials which encompass
several forms of media under the control of a computer” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 40).
Integrated technologies are typically hypermedia environments which allow for: (a)
various levels of learner control, (b) high levels of interactivity, and (c) the creation of
integrated audio, video, and graphic environments. Examples include hypermedia
authoring and telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and the World Wide
Web.
18
Performances Indicative of the Development Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the development standard. You may
wish to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
2.0.1 Select appropriate media to produce effective learning environments using
technology resources.
2.0.2 Use appropriate analog and digital productivity tools to develop instructional and
professional products.
2.0.3 Apply instructional design principles to select appropriate technological tools for
the development of instructional and professional products.
2.0.4 Apply appropriate learning and psychological theories to the selection of
appropriate technological tools and to the development of instructional and professional
products.
2.0.5 Apply appropriate evaluation strategies and techniques for assessing effectiveness
of instructional and professional products.
2.0.6 Use the results of evaluation methods and techniques to revise and update
instructional and professional products.
2.0.7 Contribute to a professional portfolio by developing and selecting a variety of
productions for inclusion in the portfolio.
2.0.8* Develop school media collections focused on curricular needs, including a full
range of print, non-print, and electronic resources.
2.1 Print Technologies
2.1.1 Develop instructional and professional products using a variety of technological
tools to produce text for communicating information.
2.1.2 Produce print communications (e.g., flyers, posters, brochures, newsletters)
combining words and images/graphics using desktop publishing software.
2.1.3 Use presentation application software to produce presentations and supplementary
materials for instructional and professional purposes.
2.1.4 Produce instructional and professional products using various aspects of integrated
application programs.
19
2.2 Audiovisual Technologies
2.2.1 Apply principles of visual and media literacy for the development and production of
instructional and professional materials and products.
2.2.2 Apply development techniques such as storyboarding and or scriptwriting to plan
for the development of audio/video technologies.
2.2.3 Use appropriate video equipment (e.g., camcorders, video editing) to prepare
effective instructional and professional products.
2.2.4 Use a variety of projection devices with appropriate technology tools to facilitate
presentations and instruction.
2.3 Computer-Based Technologies
2.3.1 Design and produce audio/video instructional materials which use computer-based
technologies.
2.3.2 Design, produce, and use digital information with computer-based technologies.
2.3.3 Use imaging devices (e.g., digital cameras, video cameras, scanners) to produce
computer-based instructional materials.
2.3.4* Incorporate the use of the Internet, online catalogs and electronic databases to
meet the reference and learning needs of students and teachers.
2.4 Integrated Technologies
2.4.1 Use authoring tools to create effective hypermedia/multimedia instructional
materials or products.
2.4.2 Develop and prepare instructional materials and products for various distance
education delivery technologies.
2.4.3 Combine electronic and non-electronic media to produce instructional materials,
presentations, and products.
2.4.4 Use telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and browsing tools for the
World Wide Web to develop instructional and professional products.
2.4.5 Develop effective Web pages with appropriate links using various technological
tools (e.g., print technologies, imaging technologies, and video).
2.4.6 Use writable CD-ROMs to record productions using various technological tools.
20
2.4.7 Use appropriate software for capturing Web pages, audio wave files, and video files
for developing off-line presentations.
2.4.8* Prepare instructional materials, bibliographies, resource lists for instructional
units, and other materials as appropriate to support students and teachers.
21
Standard 3: UTILIZATION
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to use processes and
resources for learning by applying principles and theories of media utilization, diffusion,
implementation, and policy-making.
Supporting Explanations
“Utilization is the act of using processes and resources for learning” (Seels & Richey,
1994, p. 46). This domain involves matching learners with specific materials and
activities, preparing learners for interacting with those materials, providing guidance
during engagement, providing assessment of the results, and incorporating this usage into
the continuing procedures of the organization.
3.1
Media Utilization
“Media utilization is the systematic use of resources for learning” (Seels & Richey,
1994, p. 46). Utilization is the decision-making process of implementation based on
instructional design specifications.
3.2
Diffusion of Innovations
“Diffusion of innovations is the process of communicating through planned strategies for
the purpose of gaining adoption” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 46). With an ultimate goal of
bringing about change, the process includes stages such as awareness, interest, trial, and
adoption.
3.3
Implementation and Institutionalization
“Implementation is using instructional materials or strategies in real (not simulated)
settings. Institutionalization is the continuing, routine use of the instructional innovation
in the structure and culture of an organization” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47). The
purpose of implementation is to facilitate appropriate use of the innovation by individuals
in the organization. The goal of institutionalization is to integrate the innovation within
the structure and behavior of the organization.
3.4
Policies and Regulations
“Policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society (or its surrogates) that
affect the diffusion and use of Instructional Technology” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47).
This includes such areas as web-based instruction, instructional and community
television, copyright law, standards for equipment and programs, use policies, and the
creation of a system which supports the effective and ethical utilization of instructional
technology products and processes.
22
Performances Indicative of the Utilization Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the utilization standard. You may wish
to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
3.0.1* Assess, analyze and design a media facility for optimal use and functionality to
support contemporary educational goals of the school media program.
3.0.2* Use automated processes and technologies related to school media center
operations.
3.1 Media Utilization
3.1.1 Identify key factors in selecting and using technologies appropriate for learning
situations specified in the instructional design process.
3.1.2 Use educational communications and instructional technology (SMETS) resources
in a variety of learning contexts.
3.1.3* Provide services and resources to all users in all formats that support curriculum
needs and recreational reading interests of the students and teachers that are consistent
with the mission, goals, and objectives of the local school community.
3.1.4* Provide accurate and prompt reference information and exhibit strong
communication skills when responding to reference inquiries.
3.1.5* Use interlibrary loan and other resources, such as statewide and/or other electronic
gateways, to acquire resources for students and teachers through the school media center.
3.1.6* Identify collection development resource tools to establish, maintain and evaluate
a high quality collection for the media center in a variety of formats that supports
standards-based curricula and addresses the information and learning needs of all
learners.
3.2 Diffusion of Innovations
3.2.1 Identify strategies for the diffusion, adoption, and dissemination of innovations in
learning communities.
3.2.2* Publicize the value of school media programs within the school, community, and
local school district.
3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization
3.3.1 Use appropriate instructional materials and strategies in various learning contexts.
23
3.3.2 Identify and apply techniques for integrating SMETS innovations in various
learning contexts.
3.3.3 Identify strategies to maintain use after initial adoption.
3.3.4* Understand and apply the principles of management theory to the operations of the
school media center.
3.3.5* Use automated processes and technologies related to design, production and
implementation of instructional materials and information systems in the operations of
the school media program.
3.4 Policies and Regulations
3.4.1 Identify and apply standards for the use of instructional technology.
3.4.2 Identify and apply policies which incorporate professional ethics within practice.
3.4.3 Identify and apply copyright and fair use guidelines within practice.
3.4.4 Identify and implement effective policies related to the utilization, application, and
integration of instructional technologies.
3.4.5 Identify policies and regulations which apply to the utilization, application, and
integration of distance delivery technologies.
3.4.6* Identify current local, state, and federal policies and procedures and apply them
within the school media program and the operation of the school media center.
3.4.7* Identify and apply contemporary laws related to copyright, fair use, and
intellectual freedom in the school media program.
3.4.8* Develop acceptable use policies (AUPs) for Internet use in P-12 settings.
3.4.9* Develop circulation policies and procedures which ensure students and teachers
have access to media center resources in all formats.
3.4.10* Develop and use policies and procedures that include collection
development/selection, reconsideration of challenged materials, and weeding criteria that
are consistent with the ethics of the information profession and with the mission, goals
and objectives of the local school district.
24
Standard 4: MANAGEMENT
Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to plan, organize, coordinate,
and supervise instructional technology by applying principles of project, resource,
delivery system, and information management.
Supporting Explanations:
“Management involves controlling Instructional Technology through planning,
organizing, coordinating, and supervising” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 49). The domain of
management includes four sub-domains of theory and practice: Project Management,
Resource Management, Delivery System Management, and Information Management.
Within each of these sub-domains there is a common set of tasks to be accomplished:
organization must be assured, personnel hired and supervised, funds planned and
accounted for, facilities developed and maintained, and short- and long-term goals
established. A manager is a leader who motivates, directs, coaches, supports, monitors
performance, delegates, and communicates.
4.1
Project Management
“Project management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling instructional design
and development projects” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 50). Project managers negotiate,
budget, install information monitoring systems, and evaluate progress.
4.2
Resource Management
“Resource management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling resource support
systems and services” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). This includes documentation of cost
effectiveness and justification of effectiveness or efficiency for learning as well as the
resources of personnel, budget, supplies, time, facilities, and instructional resources.
4.3
Delivery System Management
“Delivery system management involves planning, monitoring and controlling ‘the method
by which distribution of instructional materials is organized’ . . . [It is] a combination of
medium and method of usage that is employed to present instructional information to a
learner” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). This includes attention to hardware and software
requirements, technical support for the users and developers, and process issues such as
guidelines for designers, instructors, and SMETS support personnel.
4.4
Information Management
“Information management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling the storage,
transfer, or processing of information in order to provide resources for learning” (Seels
& Richey, 1994, p. 51). Information is available in many formats and candidates must be
able to access and utilize a variety of information sources for their professional benefit
and the benefit of their future learners.
25
Performances Indicative of the Management Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the management standard. You may
wish to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
4.0.1 Demonstrate leadership attributes with individuals and groups (e.g., interpersonal
skills, group dynamics, team building).
4.0.2* Establish mission, goals and objectives of the school media program that align
with and support those of the local school district and community.
4.0.3* Develop a collaborative working relationship with school administration and staff
which results in a strong understanding and widespread use of the school media program.
4.1 Project Management
4.1.1 Apply project management techniques in various learning and training contexts.
4.1.2* Use knowledge of school, district, state, regional, and national organizations to
support efficient and effective operations in contemporary school media programs.
4.2 Resource Management
4.2.1 Apply resource management techniques in various learning and training contexts.
4.2.2* Manage and evaluate qualified personnel and volunteer staff for an effective
school media program.
4.2.3* Prepare and justify a budget that supports standards-based curricula and that
provides necessary resources to ensure the success of the school media program.
4.2.4* Identify effective school media program services that promote collaborative
planning and curriculum development with classroom teachers.
4.2.5* Facilitate collaborative teaching practices among school faculty, staff, curriculum
specialists, and teacher aides.
4.2.6* Mentor and empower students, teachers, administrators and community members
in their use of the school media center.
4.3 Delivery System Management
4.3.1 Apply delivery system management techniques in various learning and training
contexts.
26
4.4 Information Management
4.4.1 Apply information management techniques in various learning and training
contexts.
4.4.2* Apply a planning process for the development of school media programs using
tools such as flowcharts and timelines.
27
Standard 5: EVALUATION
Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to evaluate the adequacy of
instruction and learning by applying principles of problem analysis, criterion-referenced
measurement, formative and summative evaluation, and long-range planning.
Supporting Explanations:
“Evaluation is the process of determining the adequacy of instruction and learning”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 54). SMETS candidates demonstrate their understanding of the
domain of evaluation through a variety of activities including problem analysis, criterionreferenced measurement, formative evaluation, and summative evaluation.
5.1 Problem Analysis
“Problem analysis involves determining the nature and parameters of the problem by
using information-gathering and decision-making strategies” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p.
56). SMETS candidates exhibit technology competencies defined in the knowledge base.
Candidates collect, analyze, and interpret data to modify and improve instruction and
SMETS projects.
5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement
“Criterion-referenced measurement involves techniques for determining learner mastery
of pre-specified content” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56). SMETS candidates utilize
criterion-referenced performance indicators in the assessment of instruction and SMETS
projects.
5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation
“Formative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this
information as a basis for further development. Summative evaluation involves gathering
information on adequacy and using this information to make decisions about utilization”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 57). SMETS candidates integrate formative and summative
evaluation strategies and analyses into the development and modification of instruction,
SMETS projects, and SMETS programs.
5.4 Long-Range Planning
Long-range planning that focuses on the organization as a whole is strategic
planning....Long-range is usually defined as a future period of about three to five years
or longer. During strategic planning, managers are trying to decide in the present what
must be done to ensure organizational success in the future.” (Certo et al., 1990, p. 168).
SMETS candidates demonstrate formal efforts to address the future of this highly
dynamic field including the systematic review and implementation of current SMET
developments and innovations.
28
Performances Indicative of the Evaluation Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the evaluation standard. You may
wish to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
5.1 Problem Analysis
5.1.1 Identify and apply problem analysis skills in appropriate school media and
educational technology (SMET) contexts (e.g., conduct needs assessments, identify and
define problems, identify constraints, identify resources, define learner characteristics,
define goals and objectives in instructional systems design, media development and
utilization, program management, and evaluation).
5.1.2* Apply knowledge of current trends and issues in the field of school media.
5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement
5.2.1 Develop and apply criterion-referenced measures in a variety of SMET contexts.
5.2.2* Identify and collect appropriate data to support decision-making, short-and longterm, for the school media program.
5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation
5.3.1 Develop and apply formative and summative evaluation strategies in a variety of
SMET contexts.
5.3.2* Develop and implement a school media program evaluation process.
5.3.3* Use a variety of summative and formative assessment techniques for the
evaluation of the school media center and for the school media program.
5.4 Long-Range Planning
5.4.1 Develop a long-range strategic plan related to any of the domains or sub-domains.
5.4.2* Develop and update a long-range strategic school media program plan.
29
CHAPTER III
STANDARDS FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF
ADVANCED PREPARATION PROGRAMS OF SCHOOL MEDIA AND
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS (SMETS)
These standards are concerned with candidate performances, curriculum, faculty,
specialized support services, and evaluation procedures required for the accreditation of
advanced programs for the preparation of school media and educational technology
specialists (SMETS). Advanced SMETS programs are defined as those which represent
additional study in the field. A graduate program which advances knowledge and skills
beyond the entry level for the profession constitutes an advanced SMETS program. It is
expected that advanced candidates are able to demonstrate the competencies outlined in
the initial program. The intended audience for the standards are those faculty members
and administrators who have the responsibility for, and control of, such programs. These
standards are intended to accompany and amplify NCATE's Standards, Procedures, and
Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education Units, and to address Standard 1
of the NCATE standards.
INTRODUCTION
These standards for accrediting advanced programs in school media and
educational technology (SMET) are built upon the same definitions and domains as the
standards for initial programs. Definitions of educational technology and a discussion of
the philosophical basis for SMETS programs are provided in Chapter I of this document
which should be reviewed prior to developing a program report in response to the
advanced standards in this chapter.
Details of content and organization for advanced programs are not specified in the
standards. All advanced programs should provide for at least minimal competencies
within each domain of the instructional technology knowledge base. Advanced programs
should also indicate the domains and sub-domains that are germane to their program and
the roles filled by their graduates. The intent of the standards is to provide the maximum
degree of flexibility to institutions as they develop soundly conceived and defined
programs.
The advanced standards are built upon the assumption that basic media support
for teacher training is available to support advanced programs in educational
communications and instructional technologies. These advanced standards require
evidence of the specialized facilities and services necessary to support the development
of competencies required of graduates from the program. The advanced standards also
concentrate on the candidate’s preparation in the research, application of theory, and
theory development within the field.
30
Curricula and candidate performances for the advanced preparation of personnel
in the fields of school media and educational technology should be grounded in the
knowledge base of the field. The domains of the field include design, development,
utilization, management, and evaluation. Programs will vary in their concentration on
each of the domains.
The complete domains and sub-domains are listed below:
Design
Instructional Systems Design
Message Design
Instructional Strategies
Learner Characteristics
Development
Print Technologies
Audiovisual Technologies
Computer-Based Technologies
Integrated Technologies
Utilization
Utilization
Diffusion of Innovations
Implementation and Institutionalization
Policies and Regulations
Management
Project Management
Resource Management
Delivery System Management
Information Management
Evaluation
Problem Analysis
Criterion-Referenced Measurement
Formative Evaluation
Summative Evaluation
Within these five domains and twenty sub-domains, the program may be
composed of those competencies most appropriate to the intended roles of the candidates.
31
Standard 1: DESIGN
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to design conditions for
learning by applying principles, theories, and research associated with instructional
systems design, message design, instructional strategies, and learner characteristics.
Supporting Explanations:
“Design is the process of specifying conditions for learning” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p.
30). The domain of design includes four sub-domains of theory and practice:
Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Message Design, Instructional Strategies, and
Learner Characteristics.
1.1
Instructional Systems Design (ISD)
“Instructional Systems Design (ISD) is an organized procedure that includes the steps of
analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating instruction”(Seels &
Richey, 1994, p. 31). Within the application of this definition, ‘design’ is interpreted at
both a macro- and micro-level in that it describes the systems approach and is a step
within the systems approach. The importance of process, as opposed to product, is
emphasized in ISD.
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
Analyzing: process of defining what is to be learned and the context in
which it is to be learned.
Designing: process of specifying how it is to be learned.
Developing: process of authoring and producing the instructional
materials.
Implementing: actually using the materials and strategies in context.
Evaluating: process of determining the adequacy of the instruction.
1.2
Message Design
“Message design involves planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the
message” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). Message design is embedded within learning
theories (cognitive, psychomotor, behavioral, perceptual, affective, constructivist) in the
application of known principles of attention, perception, and retention which are intended
to communicate with the learner. This sub-domain is specific to both the medium selected
and the learning task.
1.3
Instructional Strategies
“Instructional strategies are specifications for selecting and sequencing events and
activities within a lesson” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 31). In practice, instructional
strategies interact with learning situations. The results of these interactions are often
described by instructional models. The appropriate selection of instructional strategies
and instructional models depends upon the learning situation (including learner
characteristics), the nature of the content, and the type of learner objective.
32
1.4
Learner Characteristics
“Learner characteristics are those facets of the learner’s experiential background that
impact the effectiveness of a learning process” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 32). Learner
characteristics impact specific components of instruction during the selection and
implementation of instructional strategies. For example, motivation research influences
the selection and implementation of instructional strategies based upon identified learner
characteristics. Learner characteristics interact with instructional strategies, the learning
situation, and the nature of the content.
Performances Indicative of the Design Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the design standard. You may wish to
identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
1.1 Instructional Systems Design
1.1.a Apply a variety of instructional systems design models.
1.1.b Identify theories from which a variety of ID models are derived and the consequent
implications.
1.1.c Demonstrate proficiency in the prescription, implementation, and evaluation of
treatments to maximize learning/performance outcomes in a variety of contexts.
1.1.1 Analyzing
1.1.1.a Utilize research methodologies appropriate to the investigation of instructional
tasks and content.
1.1.1.b Identify the theories and historical background of analysis as a component of
instructional design and instructional systems development.
1.1.2 Designing
1.1.2.a Demonstrate in-depth synthesis and evaluation of the theoretical constructs and
research methodologies related to instructional design as applied in multiple contexts.
1.1.2.b Utilize principles and procedures of instructional design in a variety of contexts
and systems.
1.1.2.c Recognize and articulate current trends in the development of theory and
emerging practice related to instructional design.
1.1.3 Developing
33
1.1.3.a Demonstrate personal skill development with two or more: computer authoring
application, video tool, or electronic communication application (not telephone).
1.1.3.b Utilize the research, theoretical, and practitioner foundations of the field in the
development of instructional materials.
1.1.3.c Utilize the research, theoretical, and practitioner foundations of the field in the
selection of media for instructional settings.
1.1.4 Implementing
1.1.4.a Conduct basic and applied research related to technology integration and
implementation.
1.1.4.b Utilize the research, theoretical, and practitioner foundations of the field in the
implementation of instructional plans.
1.1.5 Evaluating
1.1.5.a Demonstrate congruency among goals/objectives, instructional strategies, and
assessment measures.
1.1.5.b Conduct basic and applied research in the evaluation of emergent learner
assessments.
1.1.5.c Articulate the relationships within the discipline between theory, research, and
practice as well as the inter-relationships between people, processes, and devices.
1.2 Message Design
1.2.a Conduct basic and applied research related to message design, which includes
multiple media.
1.3 Instructional Strategies
1.3.a Identify multiple instructional strategy models and demonstrate appropriate
contextualized application within practice and field experiences.
1.3.b Demonstrate appropriate uses of multiple instructional strategies for complex,
interactive environments.
1.4 Learner Characteristics
1.4.a Analyze the effectiveness of macro- and micro-level design efforts by considering
the interactions of learner characteristics, instructional strategies, nature of the content,
and the learning situation.
34
1.4.b Demonstrate in-depth synthesis and evaluation of the theoretical constructs and
contemporary research related to the identification and importance of learner
characteristics.
35
Standard 2: DEVELOPMENT
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to develop instructional
materials and experiences by applying principles, theories, and research related to print,
audiovisual, computer-based, and integrated technologies.
Supporting Explanation:
“Development is the process of translating the design specifications into physical form”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 35). The domain of development includes four sub-domains:
Print Technologies, Audiovisual Technologies, Computer-Based Technologies, and
Integrated Technologies. Development is tied to other areas of theory, research, design,
evaluation, utilization, and management.
2.1
Print Technologies
“Print technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials, such as books and static
visual materials, primarily through mechanical or photographic printing processes”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 37). Print technologies include verbal text materials and visual
materials; namely, text, graphic and photographic representation and reproduction. Print
and visual materials provide a foundation for the development and utilization of the
majority of other instructional materials.
2.2
Audiovisual Technologies
“Audiovisual technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials by using mechanical
devices or electronic machines to present auditory and visual messages” (Seels &
Richey, 1994, p. 38). Audiovisual technologies are generally linear in nature, represent
real and abstract ideas, and allow for learner interactivity dependent on teacher
application.
2.3
Computer-Based Technologies
“Computer-based technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials using
microprocessor-based resources” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 39). Computer-based
technologies represent electronically stored information in the form of digital data.
Examples include computer-based instruction (CBI), computer-assisted instruction
(CAI), computer-managed instruction (CMI), telecommunications, electronic
communications, and global resource/reference access.
2.4
Integrated Technologies
“Integrated technologies are ways to produce and deliver materials which encompass
several forms of media under the control of a computer” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 40).
Integrated technologies are typically hypermedia environments which allow for: (a)
various levels of learner control, (b) high levels of interactivity, and (c) the creation of
integrated audio, video, and graphic environments. Examples include hypermedia
authoring and telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and the World Wide
Web.
36
Performances Indicative of the Development Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the development standard. You may
wish to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
2.0.1 Collaborate with a development team to apply principles of design specifications to
produce technological products.
2.0.2 Use theory, research, and evaluation to select appropriate technological tools for
developing effective instructional products and processes.
2.0.3 Compare, analyze, critique, and evaluate commercially produced products to
determine how learning theories, instructional design specifications, production
principles, and teaching strategies are embedded within the product.
2.0.4 Solve problems of design specifications for embedding learning theories and
effective teaching strategies in the development of instructional or professional products.
2.0.5 Evaluate the effective use of design specifications in products used in a variety of
learning or training environments.
2.0.6 Create instructional or professional products using technology resources such as
CD-ROMs, laser discs, Web pages, digital technologies, and other emerging technology
resources.
2.0.7 Apply principles of learning theories and research to create effective learning
environments.
37
Standard 3: UTILIZATION
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to use processes and
resources for learning by applying principles, theories, and research related to media
utilization, diffusion, implementations, and policy-making.
Supporting Explanations
“Utilization is the act of using processes and resources for learning” (Seels & Richey,
1994, p. 46). This domain involves matching learners with specific materials and
activities, preparing learners for interacting with those materials, providing guidance
during engagement, providing assessment of the results, and incorporating this usage into
the continuing procedures of the organization.
3.1
Media Utilization
“Media utilization is the systematic use of resources for learning” (Seels & Richey,
1994, p. 46). Utilization is the decision-making process of implementation based on
instructional design specifications.
3.2
Diffusion of Innovations
“Diffusion of innovations is the process of communicating through planned strategies for
the purpose of gaining adoption” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 46). With an ultimate goal of
bringing about change, the process includes stages such as awareness, interest, trial, and
adoption.
3.3
Implementation and Institutionalization
“Implementation is using instructional materials or strategies in real (not simulated)
settings. Institutionalization is the continuing, routine use of the instructional innovation
in the structure and culture of an organization” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47). The
purpose of implementation is to facilitate appropriate use of the innovation by individuals
in the organization. The goal of institutionalization is to integrate the innovation within
the structure and behavior of the organization.
3.4
Policies and Regulations
“Policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society (or its surrogates) that
affect the diffusion and use of Instructional Technology” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 47).
This includes such areas as web-based instruction, instructional and community
television, copyright law, standards for equipment and programs, use policies, and the
creation of a system which supports the effective and ethical utilization of instructional
technology products and processes.
38
Performances Indicative of the Utilization Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the utilization standard. You may wish
to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
3.1 Media Utilization
3.1.1 Apply research and theory in the selection and utilization of technologies for
learning.
3.2 Diffusion of Innovations
3.2.1 Apply research and theory in the implementation of strategies for the diffusion,
adoption, and dissemination of innovations in learning communities.
3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization
3.3.3 Identify and implement strategies to engage stakeholders in the process of diffusion,
adoption, and dissemination.
3.3.5 Evaluate the effects of diffusion, adoption, and dissemination.
3.4 Policies and Regulations
3.4.4 Implement effective policies related to the utilization, application, and integration
of instructional technologies in a variety of contexts.
39
Standard 4: MANAGEMENT
Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to plan, organize, coordinate,
and supervise instructional technology by applying principles, theories and research
related to project, resource, delivery system, and information management.
Supporting Explanations:
“Management involves controlling Instructional Technology through planning,
organizing, coordinating, and supervising” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 49). The domain of
management includes four sub-domains of theory and practice: Project Management,
Resource Management, Delivery System Management, and Information Management.
Within each of these sub-domains there is a common set of tasks to be accomplished:
organization must be assured, personnel hired and supervised, funds planned and
accounted for, facilities developed and maintained, and short- and long-term goals
established. A manager is a leader who motivates, directs, coaches, supports, monitors
performance, delegates, and communicates.
4.1
Project Management
“Project management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling instructional
design and development projects” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 50). Project managers
negotiate, budget, install information monitoring systems, and evaluate progress and
improvement.
4.2
Resource Management
“Resource management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling resource support
systems and services” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). This includes documentation of cost
effectiveness and justification of effectiveness or efficiency for learning as well as the
resources of personnel, budget, supplies, time, facilities, and instructional resources.
4.3
Delivery System Management
“Delivery system management involves planning, monitoring and controlling ‘the
method by which distribution of instructional materials is organized’ . . . [It is] a
combination of medium and method of usage that is employed to present instructional
information to a learner” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 51). This includes attention to
hardware and software requirements, technical support for the users and developers, and
process issues such as guidelines for designers, instructors, and SMETS support
personnel.
4.4
Information Management
“Information management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling the storage,
transfer, or processing of information in order to provide resources for learning” (Seels
& Richey, 1994, p. 51). Information is available in many formats and candidates must be
able to access and utilize a variety of information sources for their professional benefit
and the benefit of their future learners.
40
Performances Indicative of the Management Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the management standard. You may
wish to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
4.0.1 Implement and evaluate a micro-level technology plan in an appropriate setting.
4.1.1 Implement and evaluate project management techniques using current research.
4.2.1 Implement and evaluate resource management techniques using current research.
4.3.1 Implement and evaluate delivery system management techniques using current
research.
4.4.1 Implement and evaluate information management techniques using current
research.
41
Standard 5: EVALUATION
Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to evaluate the adequacy of
instruction and learning by applying principles, theories, and research related to problem
analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, formative and summative evaluation, and
long-range planning.
Supporting Explanations:
“Evaluation is the process of determining the adequacy of instruction and learning”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 54). SMETS candidates demonstrate their understanding of the
domain of evaluation through a variety of activities including problem analysis, criterionreferenced measurement, formative evaluation, and summative evaluation.
5.1 Problem Analysis
“Problem analysis involves determining the nature and parameters of the problem by
using information-gathering and decision-making strategies” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p.
56). SMETS candidates exhibit technology competencies defined in the knowledge base.
Candidates collect, analyze, and interpret data to modify and improve instruction and
SMETS projects.
5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement
“Criterion-referenced measurement involves techniques for determining learner mastery
of pre-specified content” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 56). SMETS candidates utilize
criterion-referenced performance indicators in the assessment of instruction and SMETS
projects.
5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation
“ Formative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this
information as a basis for further development. Summative evaluation involves gathering
information on adequacy and using this information to make decisions about utilization”
(Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 57). SMETS candidates integrate formative and summative
evaluation strategies and analyses into the development and modification of SMETS
projects and programs.
5.4 Long-Range Planning
Long-range planning that focuses on the organization as a whole is strategic
planning....Long-range is usually defined as a future period of about three to five years
or longer. During strategic planning, managers are trying to decide in the present what
must be done to ensure organizational success in the future.” (Certo et al., 1990, p. 168).
SMETS candidates demonstrate formal efforts to address the future of this highly
dynamic field including the systematic review and implementation of current SMETS
developments and innovations.
42
Performances Indicative of the Evaluation Standard
Select candidate performances which are applicable to your program. The following
indicators are examples of performances related to the evaluation standard. You may
wish to identify additional performance indicators related to your program.
5.0.1 Exhibit knowledge of and display skill in the analysis of current school media and
educational technology (SMET) research on evaluation in order to evaluate SMETS
projects and programs.
5.0.2 Demonstrate skill in the conception, design, implementation, and reporting of
original SMETS research on evaluation in order to evaluate SMETS projects and
programs.
5.0.3 Apply theories underlying the five educational technology domains to instructional
projects.
5.0.4 Identify and apply strategies to develop and implement a long-range plan for an
SMETS program or project.
43
CHAPTER IV
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
This section describes information that institutions are expected to submit for
program review under NCATE accreditation. The focus is on assessment evidence that
demonstrates candidate proficiencies, accompanied by appropriate contextual information
that will assist AECT/NCATE program reviewers. This "performance-based" approach
contrasts with the overview statement and matrix format displaying descriptions of
course offerings and experiences that have previously served as the primary evidence for
NCATE folio reviews.
It is the responsibility of program faculty to make the case that candidates
completing SMETS preparation programs are meeting the standards. Faculty in
every institution conduct extensive assessment activities and, through external sources,
have access to additional information about the performances of their candidates. As they
respond to the material for program review described in this section, each SMETS
preparation institution and all faculty involved should make full use of evaluative
information that is readily available about candidate —and former candidate—
proficiencies. Faculty may find it useful to re-evaluate the relevance and adequacy of all
this assessment information. They should build on the institution’s own assessments,
already in place, and in ways that are suited to the institution’s mission and overall
program goals. There are many alternatives through which faculty can provide
experiences that will enable candidates to learn and practice the content expressed in the
standards. Similarly, there are multiple ways to build the monitoring of candidate
progress into the SMETS preparation program.
Program quality judgments will be based on evidence that the program’s
candidates, as a group, demonstrate proficiency in the standards. Both components
of courses or experiences offered by the institution, and characteristics of the assessment
and evaluation system, can advance the preparation of teacher candidates. They are
essential inputs or processes created by institutions so that candidates have opportunities
to learn and practice the content and skills of the standards. However, the emphasis in
performance-based program review is on evidence demonstrating that candidates display
knowledge and skills related to the standards and performance indicators. The review will
consider how the program has addressed and assessed SMETS candidate competencies
for each domain. How does the program provide the knowledge and skills for the
development of competencies in a domain? How does the program assess and monitor
the development of candidate competencies in a domain? How does the program
determine that candidates have attained acceptable competence in a domain?
The new AECT program standards in Chapters II and III, together with the
performance-based evidence submissions, represent a significant change from previous
AECT guidelines. For that reason, they are to be used by all institutions applying for
initial review, and also for all accredited institutions’ next continuing review. The details
44
of the review requirements may differ from state to state, however, depending on the
provisions of any applicable NCATE State Partnership agreement.
HOW IS "PERFORMANCE-BASED" PROGRAM REVIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE
PREVIOUS NCATE/AECT PROGRAM REVIEW?
The revised AECT standards represent a new approach to program review in
NCATE’s accreditation system. Three statements express the "paradigm shift" found in
the new standards and program review:
• First, the standards describe what SMETS candidates should know and be able to
do so that students learn. This contrasts with the previous course-based approach in
which guidelines described what should be covered in courses and experiences in the
program.
• Second, the evidence used for decisions about "national recognition" of programs is
from assessments and evaluations of candidate proficiencies in relation to those
standards. This contrasts with evidence, under the previous course-based approach, that
described where particular material is covered in the syllabi and courses.
• Third, it is the responsibility of program faculty to make the case that candidates
completing SMETS preparation programs are meeting the standards and to
demonstrate how well candidates are meeting them.
NCATE has set a transition timeline for implementation of the new performancebased accreditation for teacher preparation units. That transition plan, for which the full
text is available on the NCATE web site at www.ncate.org, sets a schedule for all units to
follow in development and implementation of their assessment systems. Faculty from
institutions applying for program review of SMETS preparation should assume the
same implementation timelines as those announced for the unit transition plan. In
brief, by the Fall of 2001 and Spring 2002 there should be, at a minimum, a plan for an
assessment system with timelines and details about components and management,
collaboratively developed by the professional community. By the Fall of 2004 and Spring
of 2005, the assessment system should be implemented, evaluated and refined. The
NCATE web site provides descriptions and details for the intervening years.
45
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alloway, B. S., Mills, G. M., & Trott, A. J. (Eds.). (1985). Aspects of educational
technology: Volume XVIII. New directions in education and training technology. London:
Kogan Page.
American Association of School Librarians. (1976). Certification model for professional
school media personnel. Chicago: American Library Association.
American Association of School Librarians. (1989). Curriculum folio guidelines for the
NCATE review process: School library media specialist basic preparation. Chicago:
American Library Association.
American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for
learning. Chicago & Washington, DC: AASL & AECT.
American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. (1988). Information power: Guidelines for school
library media programs. Chicago & Washington, DC: AASL & AECT.
American Society for Training and Development. (1989). Models for HRD practice.
Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Anglin, G. J. (1991). Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Englewood,
CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1971). Basic guidelines
for media and technology in teacher education. Washington, DC: AECT.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1974a). AECT
guidelines for advanced programs in educational communications and technology.
Audiovisual Instruction, 19(9), 23-28.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1974b). A competency
and task list for specialists and technicians in media management, media product
development, and instructional program development. Audiovisual Instruction, 19(9), 2669.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1974c). Guidelines for
the certification of personnel in educational communications and technology. Audiovisual
Instruction, 19(9), 20-21.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1980). Competencies for
material design and production specialists. Instructional Innovator, 25(9), 30-31.
46
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1982). Basic guidelines
for media and technology in teacher education and guidelines for the accreditation of
advanced programs in educational communications and instructional technologies.
Washington, DC: AECT.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1983). Guidelines for the
accreditation of programs in educational communications and instructional technologies.
Washington, DC: AECT.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1989). Guidelines for the
accreditation of programs in educational communications and instructional technologies
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: AECT.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1989). Standards for
college and university learning resources programs. Washington, DC: AECT.
Association of College and Research Libraries. (1986, March). Standards for college
libraries. College and Research Library News, 47(3), 189-200.
Bergeson, C. O. (1973). Accreditation of educational media personnel: A developmental
look. Audiovisual Instruction, 18(5), 23-25.
Bergeson, C. O. (1974). The teacher education community and AECT. Audiovisual
Instruction, 19(3), 29.
Bratton, B. (1984). Professional certification: Will it become a reality? Performance and
Instruction, 23(1), 4-7.
Bratton, B. (1980). Plain talk about professional certification. Instructional Innovator,
25(9), 22-24.
Briggs, L. J., Gustafson, K. L., & Tillman, M. H. (Eds.). (1991). Instructional design:
Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University.
Certo, S. C., Husted, S. W., Douglas, M. E., & Hartl, R. J. (1990). Business (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chisholm, M. E., & Ely, D. P. (1976). Media personnel in education: A competency
approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on! New
tools for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
47
Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment. Linking for learning.
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.
New York: Teachers College.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman.
Ellington, H., & Harris, D. (1986). Dictionary of instructional technology. London:
Kogan Page.
Ely, D. P., & Minor, B. B. (1992). Educational media and technology yearbook: 1992.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the
behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Gagné, R. M. (1987). Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design
(4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Galey, M., & Grady, W. F. (1977). Guidelines for certification of media specialists.
Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Glaser, R. (1965). Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions.
Washington, DC: National Educational Association of the U.S.
Grady, W. F. (1983). Accreditation of instructional technology. In J. W. Brown & S. N.
Brown (Eds.) Educational Media and Technology Yearbook. Littleton, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.
Grady, W. F. (1987). NCATE's redesign & AECT's guidelines for accreditation.
Educational Media and Technology Yearbook. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Grady, W. F., & Bergeson, C.O. (1974). Accreditation and certification: A report.
Audiovisual Instruction, 19(9), 10-11.
Hanclosky, W., & Earle, R. S. (1992). Accreditation - what's that? Understanding the
NCATE/AECT folio review process. Tech Trends, 37(4), 14-19.
48
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1993). Instructional media and the new
technologies of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (1991). Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative,
semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology: A
book of readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (1988). The
professional reference guide to the competencies: The standards for instructors,
instructional designers and training managers. Chicago: International Board of
Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction.
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1964). Educational technology, programmed learning, and
instructional science. In E. R. Hilgard (Ed.), Theories of learning and instruction. The
sixty-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Mager, R. L. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.
Percival, F., & Ellington, H. (1988). A handbook of educational technology. London:
Kogan Page.
Prigge, W. C. (1974). Accreditation and certification: A frame of reference. Audiovisual
Instruction, 19(9), 12-18.
Richey, R. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London:
Kogan Page.
Richey, R. C., Caffarella, E. P., Ely, D. P., Molenda, M., Seels, B., & Simonson, M. R.
(1993, January). The knowledge base of instructional technology: A critical examination.
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA.
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of
the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and
Technology.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard
Educational Review, 24, 99-113.
Thomas, R. M., & Kobayashi, V. N. (Eds.). (1987). Educational technology: Its creation,
development and cross-cultural transfer. New York: Pergamon.
49
Vlcek, C. W., & Wiman, R. V. (1989). Managing media services: Theory and practice.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Wallington, C. J., et al. (1970). Jobs in instructional media study (JIMS). Washington,
DC: National Education Association, Department of Audiovisual Instruction.
Wilkinson, G. L. (1980). Alternatives for accreditation. Instructional Innovator, 25(9),
32-33, 49.
Wilkinson, G. L. (1980). Media in instruction: 60 years of research. Washington, DC:
Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Wilkinson, G. L. (1981). AECT and accreditation: Pros, cons, and alternatives. In J. W.
Brown & S. N. Brown (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook. Littleton,
CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Wilkinson, G. L., & Grady, W. F. (1982). AECT, NCATE, and accreditation of
instructional technology. In J. W. Brown & S. N. Brown (Eds.), Educational media and
technology yearbook. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Wiman, R. V., & Meierhenry, W. C. (1969). Educational media: Theory into practice.
Columbus: Merrill.
Woolls, B. (1990). Supervision of district level library media programs. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
50
APPENDIX A
ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE
Principles for Performance-Based Assessment Systems in Professional Education
Programs
Assessing what professional educator candidates know and can do is critical to
implementing the performance-based standards of the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education (NCATE) and its affiliated national professional specialty
organizations. Given the complexities of teaching and other educational professions, the
range of knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be assessed, the multiple purposes for
which assessment results are used, and the stakes associated with the outcomes,
assessment in professional education programs and units needs to include multiple
measures implemented on a systematic and ongoing basis as part of a comprehensive
system. This document outlines principles set forth by the NCATE Specialty Area
Studies Board for performance-based assessment systems at the program level.
Although assessment systems will vary across programs and units, they generally should
a) address the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be acquired by professional educator
candidates as set forth in program goals; b) be consistent with the standards of relevant
national and state accrediting/approval bodies; c) have multiple means for measuring
candidate performance and impact; and d) provide on-going, systematic information
useful for decision-making. It is particularly critical that assessment systems provide
credible results that are collected and used in a fair, valid manner consistent with their
intended purpose(s).
Assessment systems should have the following characteristics:
1. The system is driven by a conceptual framework and program values which espouse
assessment as a vehicle for both individual and program self-evaluation and
improvement. Assessment is planned and implemented by key stakeholders in a manner
consistent with the method of inquiry in the discipline and is considered a means to an
end rather than an end in itself.
2. The system includes components which work together in a synergistic manner to
address the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of candidates across program goals,
objectives and curriculum consistent with the performance-based standards of the
respective national professional specialty. Assessment is a goal-oriented process linked to
program purposes/goals and national standards.
3. Multiple measures are planned and administered on a systematic, ongoing basis
throughout the program beginning with the admissions process. The system includes
quantitative and qualitative measures useful for formative and summative assessment.
One or more measures designed to yield evidence of positive candidate impact on
students is included in the system.
51
4. The system includes one or more measures which have been created, reviewed, and/or
scored by specialty professionals external to the program. Such professionals include
those with relevant specialized expertise whose primary responsibility is not to the
program/unit, such as field-based master teachers, clinical teachers, intern supervisors,
and/or supervisors/employers of program candidates/graduates.
5. The system is clearly delineated. Measures and associated criteria or rubrics (including
minimal proficiency levels), as well as policies and practices for obtaining and using
results, are described in program documents in a manner which candidates and other
stakeholders can understand. Candidates are made aware of program standards and
assessment requirements to which they will be held and are provided with models and/or
examples of performance and the instruction and support needed to attain such levels.
6. The assessment methods and corresponding criteria included in the system are
sufficiently comprehensive and rigorous to make important decisions about the
proficiencies of candidates and to safeguard those they may potentially serve. Critical
decision-making points are delineated in the system. Decisions that are made reflect the
application of relevant criteria and use of results in a manner which discriminates
acceptable versus unacceptable performance.
7. The system includes policies and procedures for the gathering, use, storage, and
reporting of individual results. Such policies address the rights of individuals (e.g., those
afforded candidates by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act;
confidentiality/anonymity of survey responses). Individual candidate results are reported
in a clear manner which acknowledges the source(s) and limitations of the data,
individual strengths, and areas of needed or potential improvement.
8. The system includes a structure and procedures for sampling, analyzing, summarizing,
and reporting aggregated results. Data are gathered on an ongoing basis and are
summarized in a manner which reflects pass rates, the range of performances, and/or the
"typical" or "average" performance (e.g., mean, median, or modal performance) as
appropriate to the types of measures. Summaries of results are provided to key program
stakeholders in a clear manner which acknowledges the source(s) and limitations of the
data, data collection and reporting time frame, program strengths, and areas of needed or
potential improvement.
9. The program and its assessment system foster the use of results for individual
candidate and program improvement. Assessment results are regularly reviewed in
relation to program goals and objectives as well as to relevant state and national standards
and stimulate changes designed to optimize success.
10. The system has a mechanism and procedures for evaluating and improving itself and
its component assessment methods. Evidence of the reliability and validity of the system
and its component measures is gathered and used to make decisions about their ongoing
52
use and/or revision. Evidence should address the ability of the system to comprehensively
assess performance in a credible manner which is valid, fair, and unbiased.
Characteristics of Sound Evidence
Sound evidence usually exhibits several qualitative characteristics:
• Results from planned, purposeful, and continuing evaluation of candidate
proficiencies, drawing on diverse sources;
Monitoring of candidate performance is embedded in the SMETS preparation program
and conducted on a continuing basis. This monitoring is planned in response to faculty
decisions about the points in the program best suited to gathering candidate performance
information, consistent with the institution’s own context and mission. Typically such
information is gathered at candidate entry, in coursework, in connection with field
experiences, prior to the start of practica, and at completion of the program.
All information about candidates’ proficiencies, from all sources, is drawn on by the unit
for continuous evaluation of candidate progress and program success. Excerpts,
summaries, and samples from this array of information are provided for use by NCATE
in its program quality reviews. Institutions will usually begin to plan their assessment
system around activities that are the direct responsibility of the SMETS preparation unit.
Examples of assessments that might be used or created within the program include endof-course evaluations but also tasks used for instructional purposes such as projects,
journals, observations by faculty, comments by supervisors, samples of candidate work,
and other information that would commonly be available for faculty use in determining
the adequacy of the candidate’s accomplishments in a course.
The monitoring information from the SMETS preparation program can be complemented
by evaluations originating from external sources that supply information on candidate
proficiencies. Examples from outside the unit are candidate performance evaluations
during induction years and follow-up studies; performance on state licensure exams that
assess candidates’ knowledge and skills; and academic subject knowledge end-of-course
examinations, essays, or other demonstrations of achievement.
• Represents the scope of the standards for SMETS preparation;
Candidate performance evidence is congruent with the knowledge and skills in the AECT
standards. Institutions determine the best way to demonstrate that all aspects of the
standards are covered, but avoid treating each individual statement in the standards and
supporting explanations in an individual, serial, and fractionated way. Instead, faculty
think through how all their existing assessment information can be marshaled, and what
additional information is needed, to demonstrate candidate proficiency across the
standards. The usefulness and value of information derived from tests are the key
determinants in decisions to use or exclude them from an institution’s performance
measurement system.
53
• Measures the different "attributes" of standards in appropriate and multiple
ways;
One conclusion about the current state-of-the art in assessment is that no single test or
measurement of teacher candidates is sufficient by itself to represent these different
attributes and the full scope of the standards. Multiple measures provide wide
opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their accomplishments in relation to the
standards. It is anticipated that institutions will draw on the extensive range of available
assessment forms, including objective tests (which may be useful to gauge proficiencies
in standards calling for candidate knowledge) and also portfolios, observations,
reflections, teaching demonstrations, analytic work, candidate work samples, and other
forms of evaluative information demonstrating proficiency in technology use. Consider
as well external evidence of graduate success (surveys, licensure tests, employer
induction year assessments), artifacts produced by the candidates (products, plans,
assessments, case studies), reflective essays, attestations of accomplishments by
supervisors, awards and recognitions, professional service, and scholarly activities.
• Results from rigorous and systematic efforts by the institution to set performance
levels and judge accomplishments of its candidates;
Faculty establish written and shared explanations of what is valued in a candidate’s
response to an assessment—the qualities by which levels of performance can be
differentiated—that serve as anchors for judgments about the degree of candidate
success. The terms "rubrics" and "criteria" are frequently used in assessment to designate
these explanations for levels of performance. These may be stated in generic terms or
may be specific to particular assessment tasks. They may define acceptable levels of
performance for the institution and one or more levels below (such as borderline, or
unacceptable) and above (such as exemplary), or they may be in the form of criteria
defining the institution’s expectations for success. The rubrics or criteria are "public,"
that is shared with candidates and across the faculty. Faculty teach, advise, and prepare
candidates for success in meeting critical external performance expectations, as
expressed, for example, in state licensure test pass scores.
The institution judges individual candidate proficiencies, and also summarizes and
analyzes the proportions of candidates who reach levels expressed in the rubrics or
criteria. These results are used both for advisement of individual candidates, and also for
strengthening of the courses and experiences offered by the institution to prepare
elementary teacher candidates. The summary of results from the faculty judgments in
applying the rubrics or criteria are used for the NCATE submission. Examples of
candidate work are attached to the institutional submission where that is a useful way to
assist reviewers’ understanding of the levels of proficiency reached by candidates.
54
• Provides information that is credible—accurate, consistent, fair and avoids bias;
The institution gathers information on the accuracy (or validity) and consistency (or
reliability) of its assessments. Accuracy is an expectation that the assessment information
measures what is important for the decision to be made and that it represents the
performances, competencies, and dispositions that are intended (that is, included in the
AECT standards). Consistency is an expectation that successive samples of performances
from the same candidate are reasonably related. Assessment systems must also be fair,
avoiding bias and providing equitable treatment. These are matters that require
professional judgment and are often determined through peer review, evaluations by
external experts, or formal validation studies.
• Makes use of appropriate sampling and summarizing procedures.
In preparing the program submission, the institution samples and summarizes information
about candidate proficiencies. Sampling refers both to representing the domain of the
standards and representing the full range of the program’s candidates. The candidate
sample might be taken from the cohort of candidates completing the program in a specific
academic year and previous completers so that information about performance of
candidates from their entire preparation experience and into employment can be available
for demonstration of candidate proficiency. Of course, anonymity of individual
candidates and the students of those candidates must be protected.
Candidate proficiency results are summarized through averages, spread of scores, and
distributions of rubric scores. Summary results are requested because NCATE’s interest
is in making decisions about program quality, rather than decisions about individual
candidates. These summaries are made meaningful through illustrations such as samples
of examination questions, examples of written responses, and analytic materials intended
to inform reviewers of the proficiencies that candidates achieve in relation to the
standards.
Of course, institutions that have sound evidence systems use the data to advise
individual candidates and to strengthen teaching, courses, experiences, and programs.
These qualities of assessment evidence are not, themselves, the requirement for
submission. The submission is developed to describe the results of the assessment
evidence.
55
Instructions for Reviewers5
As program reviewers analyze institutional program reports it is important to always keep in mind
the purposes of the program review process:
1. To improve the quality and integrity of professionals in SMET fields through the improvement
of SMETS programs and,
2. To hold institutions accountable for meeting the NCATE/AECT performance-based standards
which provide a level of voluntary quality control for the preparation of SMET professionals.
In their totality, the 2000 NCATE/AECT performance-based Standards along with the candidate
performance indicators can be seen as describing an ideal situation which few, if any, programs will be
able to meet at the present time. The Standards should be viewed as an attainable goal and one which
programs should strive to attain. It is the process and plans for change that we will analyze as well as
documentation of candidate performance. Program reviewers should be looking for plans and
strategies for program improvement, not necessarily evidence that the change has already occurred.
Some of this kind of change and the data necessary to document such change may take years to
evidence. Program reviewers should look for progress toward achievement of the Standards. Program
reviewers are expected to provide guidance and feedback to programs as you complete a program
review. Program Reviewers must write reports that clearly explain areas of non-compliance and
provide sufficient explanation so that the program will know how to achieve compliance with the
Standards.
DOs
Begin by reading the Program Report in its
entirety
Consider each Standard individually in making
a judgment about whether that Standard is Met
or Not Met
Use a holistic view of the program in making a
judgment about whether to recommend for
National Recognition
Expect that most programs will have some
Standards in which they document greater
strengths than in other Standards
Use the rubrics and evaluation forms to guide
you through the review process
Provide critical and constructive feedback
through comments and summative evaluations
to provide guidance for program improvement
Refer to the complete documentation for each
Standard as necessary to supplement the
rubrics and evaluation forms
Complete the rubric and evaluation form in its
entirety
Use appropriate professional language
DON'Ts
Conduct the review as a "gotcha" activity
Use the indicators as a checklist to determine
if a Standard is Met or Not Met
Use the rubrics and evaluation forms as a
checklist to recommend or not recommend
National Recognition
Assume that if a program fails to meet a
Standard that the automatic recommendation
is not for National Recognition
Discuss the Program Report or your review of
the program with others
Indulge in excessive and/or convoluted
language making the report difficult to read,
interpret, or rejoin
Make excuses for a Standard not being met.
The program can submit a rejoinder if there is
additional documentation that was not
included.
Focus on trivial weaknesses (e.g., the report
exceeded the number of pages recommended)
Apply "back home" standards
5
This section draws heavily upon the Reviewer's Preparation Guide developed by the Educational
Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC).
56
57